Talk:Early tablet computers/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

End User Comments

As an infrequent wiki editor, but a subject matter user looking for info prior to a purchase decision I find this subject as well as what I consider the "start from scratch" path to the subject disorganized & confusing. Yes- PLEASE put tablet computers and tablet PC computers in the same spot from Computers > Personal Computers > Tablet WHATEVER. I'm just trying to sort out what options of devices there are (or are coming up) for this general genre of device (touch screen (w/wout removeble keyboard, general size & mobility, etc)!! Jd4x4 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not that simple: while a web browser, a book reader, a media player and a few "App Store" applications would accommodate a great deal of users who would happily call the device "my own personal computer", a device under an encyclopedic Computers > Personal Computers category would have to offer programmability and unrestricted installation of applications and as well. While not the most popular issue, it is something I would have expected an encyclopedia to inform me about. Vyx (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I do agree that an encyclopedia should inform about that. But does it merit having a separate article based on that detail alone, given the mess this separation produces? Is there a reason why that information can't be given as part of a general article covering all types of tablets? That's the crux of the discussion as I see it. Diego Moya (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The POV which Jd4x4 writes for is the End User. For a programming-oriented person like Vyx, I propose a defined section (see, for example, Talk:Tablet_computer#Developing_programs_for_a_tablet_computer) for ways to develop and load programs on a tablet computer. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I support this. Diego Moya (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The OLPC is a personal computer

According to the OLPC team:

The laptop is an open-source machine: free software gives children the opportunity to fully own the machine in every sense. While we don't expect every child to become a programmer, we don't want any ceiling imposed on those children who choose to modify their machines. -- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO:_The_Children%27s_Machine (monitored by the OLPC team)

In other words, exactly what a tablet personal computer stands for. Vyx (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about the original OLPC, its a big question whether the tablet version (XO-3) will resemble a personal computer as much as the original OLPC (which theoretically was able to run a modified version of windows). For one, it will use ARM technology, not x86 technology. Also the "one thing that exactly defines a personal computer", which you seem to see as the only criterion isn't the criterion that has universally been agreed upon here for a definition of a "personal computer", the jury hasn't been out on what defines a "personal computer".
In a practical sense, an OLPC, and certainly not the XO-3 doesn't behave like any "personal computer" I know, and I have had the opportunity to try one. I realize that you want this article to be as broad as possible, but I still think the OLPC XO-3 (when it comes out) will have much more in common with "mobile OS based tablet computers", than with "tablet personal computers", for one they do not use the desktop metaphor, nor a stylus per-se, and they use instant on technology (no boot time).
I think that including the XO-3 as a "tablet personal computer" will confuse rather than enlighten the reader of this article. But lets just say that for now the issue is unresolved, and I will give the XO-3 the benefit of the doubt for now. Mahjongg (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (January 2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


Tablet personal computer → Tablet PC — Much more common (17,400 vs. 119) and consistent with Home theater PC and Ultra-Mobile PC .--Marcus Qwertyus 08:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There's previous discussion of this name change at Talk:Tablet_PC#Why_this_should_be_a_disambiguation_page. Diego Moya (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that most of the foreign language versions of this article are using the short form of PC. Marcus Qwertyus 13:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose First and foremost, acronyms are generally avoided (WP:NAME). This topic area already suffers from an extensive amount of topic forking (WP:FORK) and this article's name is the least of its worries. Tablet computer is the topic area lead, Microsoft Tablet PC focuses on Tablet personal computers that employ Microsoft products, and this articles is supposed to cover (as I understand it) tablets that employ traditional desktop operating systems. Most of the news citations relating to "Tablet PC"[1] relate to incoming competitors to the iPad. Please remark that the iPad is not present on the Tablet personal computer article because it does not employ a traditional operating system. Then there is the fact that a disproportionate number "Tablet PC" google scholar and book hits relate to Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. In short, the topic area structure should be figured out before we go about renaming articles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm confused about one bit: Tablet personal computer has an Apple IOS section and does mention the iPad. --Pnm (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The iPad, the current tablet market leader, gets a line and a half mention, without citation, and only in the capacity that it “re-invigorated the tablet computer market”. Seems like pittance given the There is 40 lines concerning Microsoft and even the Modbook gets greater mention.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose move at this time. I agree with Labattblueboy that the main problem is forking, not the title. These are two articles about the evolution of one topic, and should be treated using summary style instead of disambiguation. Without knowing what content will end up where, it's hard to tell how to title this article. It's possible Tablet PC or Windows-based Tablet PC will be useful articles after the forking is fixed, but think the relationships between the articles should be fixed first. --Pnm (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Although "PC" is technically an acronym, it is the "standard" term to refer to this type of machine, and most people won't even know what it stands for anymore. And absolutely no-one says "tablet personal computer". Tablet PC is the preferred term, and as mentioned it would be consistent with other articles with "PC" in the title. RagingR2 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per User:RagingR2. When an acronym is better known than the term it stands for, it can be used. Clearly "Tablet PC" is the most common name, and it's the name used to describe the segment of the market this article is about. WP should reflect that usage, not use some obscure term that few others use. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Table PC is more recognizable but this sector is moving quickly and is subject to fasion. Would be fine to wait a bit and let it sort itself out. --Kvng (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Tablet PC is fine, it will also cause less confusion with the tablet computer article, because it creates a better distinction. "tablet personal computer" and "tablet computer" are almost identical terms, while "tablet PC" and "tablet computer" are much more distinct. Also everybody knows what a PC is, and so will understand the difference between a "tablet PC", and an iPad like tablet computer system better. Most other Wikipedia language also use the term "Tablet-PC" or "tablet PC" for this article. Mahjongg (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • As long as its clear what is in which article I don't care. That was the issue before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is in desparate need of rewriting; but, I do not support the current proposal. Tablet PC as a market segment was created by Microsoft and the term Tablet PC has historically meant a full function PC device that has a screen containing an embedded Wacom digitizer. These devices come in two forms: convertables and slates. More recently, the iPad has popularized less functional slate-only devices that have a touch sensitive screen (capacitive or resistive). These two classes of device (original Tablet PC and the newer Tablet) need to be discussed in detail on two separate pages; most logically entitled, Tablet PC and Tablet (since those are the accepted marketing terms in the industry). Rather than attempt to rethink how the industry should have named things, WP should document the history and use the terms that the industry has settled upon. Christopher Rath (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually it seems you support, not oppose this move! This article is about the "Tablet PC as a market segment (that) was created by Microsoft" its the "original tablet", you are talking about and the other article is the article about "the newer Tablet". Only we don't call that article "tablet" because tablet is a "pharmaceutical dosage form.", therefore we disambiguate that article by giving it the name tablet computer instead of just "tablet". So with this proposal we do "document the history and use the terms that the industry has settled upon". Mahjongg (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Diego Moya proposed a change to the page content that puts Tablet PCs and Tablets into the same article. I oppose that type of structure. There has also been discussion about making the current page a disambiguation page; while I could be talked into that change my agreement would depend upon what the disambiguation page is referencing. I agree with the device/name distinction you made in your comment; but, I must disagree with your comment about the current state of the page: the current page discusses both Tablet PCs and Tablets (contrary to its opening italicised statement); so, given that the current page discusses both device categories, I feel a broader proposal is needed. Christopher Rath (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding your comment that "tablet" cannot be used because it already has another meaning in English, I disagree: lots of English words have different meanings in different contexts. So, while the page link cannot be simply the word "Tablet", the displayed page heading can simply be that word. Christopher Rath (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Titles are disambiguated because it is technically impossible to have two pages with the same title. In the case of Tablet it is disambiguated with the word computer. Now that I think of it, Tablet computer is the primary topic (more page views) so it could be moved to tablet and Tablet could get moved to Tablet (pharmaceutical). Marcus Qwertyus 00:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New structure for sections

I have created an example page with a proposed architecture for (most of) the available information. The example is in a rough draft, not at all a final form. All contents belonging to the same topic have been put together. I propose keeping the content in each of these sections together no matter what the final structure of the articles will be or how we split them, in order to clarify the topic. Sections that are too long could be split into separate articles, and lists of devices and the complete history could also be given their own space. Note that I've reworked some of the descriptions to better match the new sections, this is not just a cut/paste of the existing content. Diego Moya (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I see, looks good to me, except that it includes material that should be in the tablet computer article, not in the Tablet personal computer article, for example the "low cost tablet" section, is clearly not about Tablet personal computers, in fact at first glance I thought I was reading a new version of tablet computer, instead of tablet personal computer, which defies the purpose of having tablet computer.
I have realized a few points that can perhaps be added, also because they help defining the different categories.
  • Tablet Personal computers, when running Windows (so actually "Microsoft tablet PC's"), need to be based on x86 technology, but when running Linux they do not, as Linux (the full desktop version), and (very important) most Linux applications were (can be) ported to other Processor architectures, and in fact ARM is a very popular alternative architecture. In fact that is one of the main distinctive differences between Microsoft tablet PC's and other tablet personal computers.
  • Tablet Personal computers require a touch-screen with a very high resolution (practically to the LCD pixel), and (thus) a stylus to operate it, because the touch-screen tries to emulate the normal mouse-pointer interface of a personal computer. That also means that those touch-screens are not naturally used as a multi-touch device, because a PC uses a single mouse-pointer, not multiple mouse-pointers.
Mahjongg (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
We're continuing the debate here to decide what content belongs in each article. Diego Moya (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Article structure

I've looked at other languages versions of these articles and I'm envious of the German one. They have reached the same Tablet Computer vs Tablet PC division, but their structure and contents are much clearer and there's no content duplication. Their secret? The Tablet PC article includes information about the iPad. The Tablet Computer article is mostly about the differences in classification, while the similarities are all placed at Tablet PC. I bring this subject here because I think it's relevant to the above discussion about the title. Diego Moya (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm strongly disinclined to reopen this can of worms... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The can is already opened, see previous discussion of article's name. It was closed in false, the problem was never solved in a satisfactory way. Diego Moya (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Diego, you are wrong about the German language site having another structure, its clear it is very similar to ours. The tablet computer article is clearly about iPad like systems only, as the article is lead in with:

Dieser Artikel bezieht sich auf eingebettete Systeme, für PC-basierende Geräte siehe Tablet-PC

in English: This article is for embedded systems, PC-based devices, see Tablet PC

While the Tablet-PC (tablet personal Computer) article is clearly only for windows based PC's in tablet form, as the Tablet-PC article is lead in with:

Dieser Artikel beschreibt auf Notebook-Hardware basierende Geräte nach Microsofts Tablet-PC-Spezifikation. Für die Klasse der fingerbedienten Touchscreen-Geräte, die auf spezialisierter Hardware basieren, siehe Tablet-Computer

in English: This article describes on notebook hardware based devices according to Microsoft's Tablet PC specification. For the class of the finger-operated touch screen devices that rely on specialized hardware, see Tablet Computer

Mahjongg (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (April 2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. There probably is a consensus to review the series of related articles and do some type of overall cleanup/organization. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Tablet personal computer → Tablet PC – Much more common (580 vs. 50) and consistent with Home theater PC and Ultra-Mobile PC. Marcus Qwertyus 23:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment this isn't about the Microsoft product. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Article name guideline suggests that articles must use most commonly used names. Neither Table PC nor Tablet Personal Computer are Microsoft trademarks, so I'm afraid your objection is moot. In addition, I don't think I have seen Tablet Personal Computer outside Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed only three months ago. A similar argument to that presented here was presented then. Unless you have anything new to add I see no reason to reopen this issue so quickly - the decision has been made and you need to respect it. In the absence of any new argument I am removing the move request. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I'll say that the underlying problem here is the existence of three separate articles for Microsoft Tablet PC, tablet personal computer and tablet computer with mostly the same content in them (and let's not forget History of tablet computers, Internet Tablet and E-book!). Until we fix the problem these requests for move or merge will continue appearing on a regular basis. There's simply no reason nor established notability for these three different articles, and the symptom is that people keep trying to reclassify them. Diego Moya (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Definition of tablet and history?

Originally, a "tablet computer" was a laptop with a rotating touch screen, just like the picture shows. This article appears to redefine the term to mean iPad and similar, which are quite different products, really. I think it would be great if we could separate these two concepts, or at least collect information on "PC" tablet PCs somewhere. Ketil (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're missing out this article about Tablet computers. No wonder you missed it, the organization of this topic is a mess. Diego Moya (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I did miss that! So there's Tablet PC for laptops with twistable touch screens, and Tablet computer for modern day Android and iOS devices. IMO, this is a sensible distinction, even if the terminology in practice is a bit vague in everyday speech. What is wrong is that most of this page still goes on to describe typical 'pads' when it should point people to the other page. Thanks for the clarification! Ketil (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I rephrased a bit and put a link in the intro, is that okay? IMO, the intro should stop there, i.e. cutting the last two paragraphs, and a lot of the references could go, too. They don't seem particularly relevant to what they're intended to corroborate. Ketil (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you've nailed the problem with this Tablet personal computer article. If you agree, we could move the information for "pad" devices that are not Microsoft Tablet PCs to the other Tablet computer article. But note that Microsoft also released pad-like computers under the "Tablet PC" name. Where do you think those should be placed, here or there? Diego Moya (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, these are obviously not clear-cut categories, and also the border between tablets and mobile phones are a bit blurred. But this is hypertext, so just be sufficiently liberal with links back and forth? Ketil (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Early_tablet_computers/Archive_3&oldid=1144642422"